Strange fate of the Russian tribe! Here there is no end to the cries from Belinsky’s devilish pen, which have found many followers, and even supporters, who pronounce for all to hear that the Russians do not have a language, do not have a history, do not have ancestors, do not have poetry, do not have literature, do not have laws, and do not have any art – that everything is borrowed, alien, stolen. Finally there appeared those who proved to scientific Europe that even we do not exist! But among us there appeared daring young men who believed the scientific evidence and, screwing up their eyes, exclaimed along with them: That’s exactly it! We do not exist! All gone!
From a speech  to the Moscow Amateur
Philological Society, 1863.
Current circumstances only make worse the picture painted by Pogodin a century and a half ago of the spiritual state of Russia’s intelligentsia.
Here are some examples taken from publicly accessible sources such as newspapers and television broadcasts.
A famous ballerina publicly corrected the Evangelist in one of her interviews, when she presented a new vision of the creation of the world by saying: “In the beginning was not the Word, but the gesture.”
A no-less-celebrated physicist and winner of the most prestigious of prizes – including the Lenin and Nobel – in his declining years decided to make his weighty intellectual contribution to the issues of ethical upbringing of schoolchildren by saying the following :
- My reason tells me that God does not exist.
- I would be very glad if I believed, but I cannot believe that two times two is five. Belief in God for me is the same thing.
- The Christian believes that Jesus Christ existed, that he rose again, that he was born of the Virgin Mary with nothing as impure as conception – he believes in all kinds of miracles.
There it is. Why then did Kant bother with his ontological, physico-theological, moral and other proofs of the existence of God?
Along came the dashing Soviet academic and refuted all these proofs with the aid of the exact science of arithmetic. It ought to be noted that Vitaly Lazarevich Ginzburg is not alone in the trends of his spiritual searching.
Other members of the country’s top scientific establishments have to the best of their abilities added to the picture painted by Pogodin of a denial of Russian spirituality. Here, for example, is the academic O.N. Trubachyov.
Back in far-off 1945 – not the best time for Russian-German relations – the aged philologist Max Fasmer lost the archive he had collected over 40 years in a bombed-out Berlin apartment. This did not prevent the venerable scholar from creating from scratch in just two years his life’s work – the Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language – for German specialists, of course.
This work was carefully translated into Russian by the future academic O.N. Trubachyov and is now the most accessible dictionary for grassroots amateurs of the Russian language. However, from this hallowed academic authoritative work we can learn, for example, that:
Shchi (cabbage soup) is a loanword adopted by Russian lovers of the dish from the Danes.
Moscow is a dirty pool, or a cow, or wet grains, depending on what one likes best.
Siberia is damp brushwood.
Love does not exist in the dictionary!
Ideas that the Slavs adopted everything from the Germans found further development in the renowned philologist’s life work, the Etymological Dictionary of Slav Languages (EDSL).
Take, for example, the Dulebs, who are mentioned in the chronicles; where did they get that name for themselves?
As O.N. Trubachyov showed, Duleb comes from the Germanic daudlaiba, literally “property, inheritance of one who has died” or “escheated land” (compare the famous Russian noble surname Totleben, from the German Tot-leben) .
There you have a proprietary amateur of the Slavs who penetrated deep into the mysteries of history.
We should understand, according to the academic’s logic, that while the Slavs wandered among other, cultured nations in search of an appropriate name for their favourite national dish – which is nothing else than living in poverty – all of the tribes fell into the possession of a German overlord to whom apparently also belonged the Duleb river in Serbia and the town of Dulyovo near Moscow. All they had to do was to wait until the Germans found the legal inheritors of this property and then present a complaint according to the latest scholarly findings.
The results of the practical activity of Russian intellectuals to confirm in readers’ heads the primitive picture of the Russians adopting their spiritual values from other peoples can be found in some quite surprising sources.
Take, for example, the history of Russian musical culture, which can be traced without a break through written sources (the Typographic Order Collection) to the 11th century.
– If peoples from other Orthodox countries ask where our osmoglasie singing comes from, we will answer them: Was the pious and most Orthodox Great Prince Yaroslav, the equal of the apostles, who took the holy baptismal name George, who sowed the land with the holy books, really not pious? If not, as it is written in our Russian Book of Generations, in the year 6551 [1051 CE] three singers came from Greece to Kiev who were skilful in znamenny, three-voiced and beautiful plainchant [demestvennoe penie], and from them was disseminated singing across the whole Russian land.
- It seems to us that this is not true, since in all Greek countries and in Palestine and in all great monasteries the singing differs from our musical singing, since we, sinners, have asked many Greeks and heard their music. And where would these three singers get this osmoglasie, znamenny and wayfarers’ singing, which is like unto philosophical wisdom?
We, sinners, think that this osmoglasie, znamenny and three-voiced chant was laid down by some wise Russian teachers; or better said by the inspiration of the Holy and Life-Giving Spirit, who set about this task, because if the Holy Spirit does not enter inside then the writer labours in vain. (State Archive of Yaroslavl Oblast, M 704 (1043). 
The anonymous author of these judgements lived in the 17th century, long before Pogodin, but the problem he identifies is very recognisable: the Book of Degrees confirms the precedence of the Greek teachers. The author juxtaposes this idea of adoption with an objection that has been ignored until today: Why adopt the feelings of others if you have something to say yourself?
The author’s second conclusion in the quoted text is no less convincing: How can one adopt from others what they do not have?
The spectrum of opinions, which do not lend themselves to an easy synthetis, falls into a range from complete denial of original Russian spirituality to the opinion of Admiral A.S. Shishkov:
May zeal for the Russian word multiply and increase in both actors and in listeners!
I understand our language to be so ancient that its sources are lost in the mists of time; to be in its sounds such a faithful imitator of nature that it seems to have composed her; to be so abundant in its splintering of thoughts into a multitude of the tiniest distinctions, and altogether so important and simple, that every person who speaks it may explain himself with his special words that are appropriate to his rank; so altogether sonorous and tender that every pipe and reed, the one for arousing, the other for tranquillising the heart, can find in it sounds becoming of them.
And, finally, so correct that an enquiring mind shall find in it an unbroken chain of concepts, one born of the other, so that he could ascend along this chain from its last to its original, utterly remote link.
The advantage of this correctness, this unbroken chain of thoughts visible in words, is so great that were attentive and diligent minds to open and to explain the first sources of such a vast poured-out sea, then the meaning of all languages would be lit up with a hitherto impenetrable light.
To what A.S. Shishkov said about two centuries ago we can add the following.
There are “childish” questions that do not have distinct answers.
Some of them are presented below.
1.Why do the celebrants of different confessions (rabbis and monks) wear identical black clothes?
2.Why do Catholic monks wear a tonsure?
3.Why do Catholic cardinals and Jewish Venetian merchants wear the same outward identifying symbol of the red skullcap?
4.What reason is there behind fashion as a cultural phenomenon?
5.What is the reason for choosing to write right-to-left, left-to-right or in bustrophedon?
6.Why is the American currency called the “dollar” and where does the $ sign come from?
7.Why are superiors at sea all captains, while on land the military has different titles?
8.Why do geometrists on dry land divide the circle into 360 degrees and sailors into 32 points?
9.Why did Columbus depart from Palos?
10.Why was the Greek letter theta (Θ) systematically changed for a T in Russian?
11.Why do the altars of Moscow’s Orthodox churches face to the east, towards Yekaterinburg, and not towards Jerusalem, which is south-west of Moscow?
12.Why are Moscow, Chernigov, Kiev and Sofia all located on one straight line?
These facts are enough to pose the problem of this paper.
In the present as in the past, there are an indeterminate number of opinions expressed by various thinkers on any important phenomenon. One such phenomenon is the Russian language, which often seems to be the only point in common for the various contradicting statements it is used to express. This uniting quality of the language shows that it is an object of broader dimensions than any individual opinion.
For simplicity’s sake, let us accept that any opinion expressed either out loud or in writing describes the three-dimensional world of physical reality. In that case the language’s ability to accommodate any descriptions by ideologically opposed authors confirms its four-dimensionality. In modern fundamental science the idea that the physical world has a fourth dimension – time – has been popular for over a hundred years. Let us accept this idea in relation to language. In fact, our contemporary words have come to us from the past; they were created by our ancestors, who used these words to describe their world of the far-off past. There is absolutely no certainty that that world was anything like our own. In that case, by delving into the possible meanings of contemporary and ancient words, we can obtain a description of the realities of that world in which our ancestors lived and created our language.
Four-dimensional objects are not very convenient in practical terms, since they are encountered in the spaces of the soul and the imagination, which are not directly observable. Therefore let us proceed in the following way.
As applied to language, the first two dimensions can be imagined as the usual, everyday description of the realities of the surrounding world, in which length and breadth prevail. We shall understand height as the intellectual difference between interlocutors, who may fill the words they have in common of the language with various meanings. Given the spiritual and intellectual differences between the users of one language, we will for now not take this dimension into account, for obvious reasons.
In that case we can accept a simplified three-dimensional model of the space of a language in which two dimensions are the contemporary material world and the third direction is the factor of change in language over time.
To account for the innumerable opinions, erratic in space and time, on a particular question, we should use the means for operating with similar objects that we know from mathematics. The totality of the spiritual product of our contemporaries can be united by the language in which exists this cumulative product, contradictory in its postulates. Such a totality with a conceptual centre in the form of one single point of contact – a common language of expression – can be characterised as the notion of swirling motion around a given centre. This motion is usually described using the notion of divergence.
In this way, by representing the divergence of the opinions of different thinkers on one question we can dispassionately take into account the entire diversity of opinions that exist at the same time and are in conflict with each other in a dual comparison.
Divergence, we may say, is a synchronic facet of the total spiritual product of those of our contemporaries who have expressed an opinion on any given problem.
In that case we can call the diachronic facet – taking into account the opinions of thinkers of different generations on the same problem – the rotor of the historical process.
It is not difficult to see that the practical use of the concepts of divergence and the rotor for non-mathematical objects such as issues of the development of language and history require an a priori definition of the centre.
Fortunately, at the stage of qualitative analysis we can limit ourselves to adopting a postulate on the existence of such a centre due to the application of our opponents’ spiritual efforts.
For example, for the problematics of the works of A.S.Shishkov, the centre is the Russian language itself; for the problem under discussion of pre-Christian religion this centre is religion as a phenomenon in the spiritual life of man, while language becomes a powerful and convenient instrument for coming to know the foundations of religion. The advantage of using emotionally neutral concepts of motion around a vortex in relation to the problems of Russian history will be demonstrated later.
In order to say something about pre-Christian religion, it would be worthwhile to define for the participants of our discussion the concept of our centre: Christian religion.
The a priori assumption that all our opponents understand this phenomenon in the same way could have unconstructive consequences for the discussion.
Earlier we saw the opinion of V.L.Ginzburg, who is far from alone in his laconic views. We might think that a substantial number of practitioners of physics would trust the opinion of the editor of a highly authoritative scientific journal to such a degree that they would not immediately turn to the patristic spiritual heritage to slake their spiritual thirst.
Thus, taking into account the phenomenon of divergence as a characteristic of any social spiritual process such as the present congress will require of each participant, at the very least, to account for the very fact of the existence of an opposing opinion that may well appear more acceptable for a particular neophyte.
As for the category of divergence as a whole, we can say that one criterion for calculating it ought to be a balanced representation of the totality of opinions that as pairs refute each other. In the final analysis each participant in a given discussion should form a “zero sum” of the representations of others; based on this it is possible to acquire one’s own opinion, nurtured like a fruit and resistant to any form of manipulation by extraneous persons.
Let us return to the theme of the current discussion.
Let us take it apart, according to our own recipe, into its component parts.
– The contemporary Christianity of Russia.
– The Christianity of Russia in its historical development.
– Pre-Christian religion.
Contemporary Christianity is envisaged as diverse organisations, both recognised by the state bureaucracy and unrecognised, but not as a whole aspiring to the expression of amicable thoughts to each other.
Alongside generally accessible sources for this vision of Christianity – the books of the Bible and the patristic writings – there is oral legend that is not accessible to the uninitiated. In the words of the Sainted Hierarch Ignaty Bryanchaninov: “The writings of the holy fathers can be compared to a pharmacist’s shop. A sick person who uses the medicine without analysing it may harm himself.” [24, 184]
The range of opinions that could be drawn from these sources is so wide and mutually incompatible that it fully allows the use of the concept of divergence as described above. For example, recently (February 17 2007) the vision of the Almighty as the Creator of the entire material world (Genesis) received an entirely unexpected development in an Epistle to all Arch-Pastors, Pastors, Clergymen, Monks and All Faithful Children of the Holy Orthodox Church, as published on the web site Russkaya Ideya (The Russian Idea):
We do not consider that we have one “Almighty” with the Jews, Muslims and other religions and confessions.
This document was signed by the priest and Father Superior the Right Reverend Diomid, Bishop of Anadyr and Chukotka. Even given the polemical sharpness of the text, there remains, as the holy fathers of the past would have said, the “temptation” for the sincere reader of the Bible who is convinced by its texts of the defining role of the Israelites for the whole of Christian culture.
Even a cursory analysis of the historical development of Christianity allows us to note the following circumstances.
Any church text confirms the constancy of Christians’ religious beliefs from the time of the apostles to the present day.
Yet let us refer to well-known circumstances from patristic legend, according to a contemporary doctrinal work (the Sotnitsy).
The most noteworthy figures in the Russian firmament of spiritual achievements are St. Sergius of Radonezh (14th century), St. Nilus of Sora (15th century) and St. Serafim of Sarov (19th century). Each of these great spiritual teachers had huge authority in the society of the time; each was a high-profile organiser of forms of church life that are known today.
The elder Serafim accepted a thousand pilgrims in one day, and taught the hermitic way of life and adoration of the Mother of God.
The elder Nilus fought against the Judaising heresy, and taught the way of life in an isolated hermit community and adoration of Christ.
The elder Sergius taught the way of life of a coenobitic monastery and adoration of the Trinity.
His spiritual authority among his contemporaries was so great that on his command the doors of all the cathedrals of Nizhny Novgorod were shut in 1365, although the town was ruled by a prince independent of Moscow and Sergius was a mere monk. In 1380, Sergius’s word was enough for Prince Oleg of Ryazan to refuse to participate in the Battle of Kulikovo Field on the side of Mamai. His disciples founded dozens of monasteries across all of Rus’.
Nevertheless, to this day not a single authentic line of Sergius’s text has survived, although from his Life  we know that he conducted extensive correspondence with his contemporaries and even with the patriarch in Constantinople.
If adoration of Christ (Nilus) can still be reconciled with Sergius’s idea of the Trinity, then the Mother of God (Serafim) does not go into the Trinity, and adoration of her image in some sense does not follow on as a development of the ideas of Nilus and Sergius; to put it mildly, it runs in parallel to these ideas.
Plunging further back into the past, we find the practice of adoration of the image of Sophia, Divine Wisdom. It was to her that the first Christian churches in Rus’ were dedicated. Yet according to contemporary editions of the Life of the saint, the logic of Prince Vladimir, builder of the cathedral of St. Sophia in Novgorod, becomes completely incomprehensible.
In the contemporary official Orthodox opinion , St. Sophia, to whom are dedicated cathedrals in many Russian towns, is a third-rate figure in the religious hierarchy; her Life says she was an inhabitant of Italy, who with her daughters Faith, Hope and Love (apparently common Italian names in the 2nd century CE) suffered death from the Roman Emperor for her faith. But was it really like that for those Kiev and Novgorod Christians who erected and dedicated their main churches? Was that how the creators of the capital of Bulgaria – people who were probably not easily frightened – imagined the image of Sophia?
First of all, let us look at the tradition of adopting a patron saint from among the divinities, and how the Athenians and Romans did it.
It would be strange to ascribe to the residents of Novgorod – enterprising, courageous, mercantile people who levied tribute from the North all the way to Siberia, the warriors of Alexander Nevsky who conquered Birger and the knights of the Teutonic Order – a desire to seek protection from a defenceless mother of three young girls who, according to a contemporary text of the lives of these Christian saints, suffered compliantly and helplessly awaited the end at the hands of the Roman executioners, who were obviously paedophiles with sadistic streaks.
In that case, rather than a simple Italian Christian woman, Sophia becomes the giant, god-like figure named by the wise men of the Kabbalah as Ein Sof, Eternal Wisdom, or Logos.
It is this universal image of Sophia (the Seth of the nine gods of Heliopolis) to which Hagia Sophia, Istanbul’s main mosque, is dedicated.
The conquering Muslims would have had no reason to maintain for half a century the dedication of this most renowned of cult buildings, the former Cathedral of St. Sophia, the main temple of Orthodox Istanbul, to an Italian Christian woman tortured by the Roman Emperor.
Directly in front of Sophia, Christian images in chronological order give up their place to pagan divinities, while the scanty original sources dry up altogether. Nevertheless, there remains the possibility to trace the succession of linguistic norms from the Christian period to the pagan, since it would appear improbable that the population of our whole country – rapidly Christianised by order of the authorities – could have relearned its language. We may be able to find traces of such a relearning.
The paper On the Divine Original Source of the Cyrillic Alphabet demonstrated the possible origin of cursive Cyrillic Russian letters as a systematic graphic imitation of the structural peculiarities of the sun Ra, the central light of our Galaxy. It was assumed there that the holy books could have been written only in equally holy letters. Since we know Orthodox texts in Cyrillic, we may suppose the existence of an epoch when this alphabet was duly acknowledged as holy.
Most likely, that would have been the era when people saw the sun Ra in the earth’s firmament with their own eyes. It was the sun Ra that was generally acknowledged by all of humanity as the Creator of our material earthly world. This view of the role of the centre of our Galaxy in relation to the whole of the periphery, in which we and our planet Earth are located, is entirely possible from the position of the modern views of astrophysics.
An important circumstance is that cursive inscriptions are entirely absent in Church Slavonic typefaces from at least the 19th century. Thus, the contemporary Church Slavonic Cyrillic typefaces ustav and poluustav are the fruit of the development of the views of its authors in an era when the heavenly image was not visible; moreover, there is an obviously discernible conflict with the opinions of their colleagues from the era when cursive script was creative.
Thus, in the spiritual products known as “the Russian language” and “the Cyrillic alphabet” we have the heritage of our ancestors who saw Sophia personally, who communicated with her spiritually; the whole spiritual baggage accumulated during this epoch of Ra has been subject to active editing in all subsequent epochs, right up until the present day. In Indian tradition the epoch of personal communication with god is usually known as Satya -Yoga. Whether there is a common root between this name, the Egyptian name of the star Sothis, Ein Sof and the Slavic Sophia should be left to expert judgement, but in our subsequent discussions we will assume that there exists a spiritual, ideological commonality among the concepts hidden behind these names.
Article 4. Whosoever abuses with curse words the holiest mother of God, the Virgin Mary, and the saints shall be considered a blasphemer, and shall be bodily punished by the removal of a joint or disembowelled.
Before the Revolution itself, in 1913, all of Orthodox Russia was talking about the harsh measures adopted by the Synod, which by deploying the military command forcibly removed from Mount Athos the Russian monks who were preaching the practice of Nilus of Sora’s prayers to Christ .
These historical examples are enough to draw the following conclusions.
In historical perspective the changeability of practices, common opinions and clerical recommendations to their flocks is quite clear. It is entirely possible that these spiritual changes over time, unnoticeable in the careworn daily lives of contemporary people but clearly observable from the examples of the outstanding Russian saints, also touched on the dogmatic foundations of faith, as Bishop Diomid’s Epistle shows. In that case it becomes obvious that the absence of historical records of Sergius’s social activity should not be explained just by reference to the brutality of time.
It is possible that there was deliberate destruction.
Whatever the case, burning spiritual books in Rus’ has been practised since the times of Tokhtamysh.
The circumstances we have set out above, combined with the preservation of the spiritual written heritage of the Russian saints, requires that we account for the invisible force that secured the memory and veneration of the image of the teacher, even while the substantial part of his teaching in the form of axioms and doctrine has been destroyed.
Such a reckoning is best done in a depersonalised way, by means of the concept of the rotor of the historical process that leads to changes in the spiritual product over time.
Earlier we saw that even recognised Christian authorities have been subject to brutal editing by a force that is as yet unknown but very efficient. Naturally, this force was also applied to pre-Christian spiritual products, after which little of them was left.
It is important to note that this force, in the form of the rotor of the historical process, is active also in contemporary life; it was thanks to it that there have been no serious attempts to analyse what happened to the country in 1991.
Let us use the image of the rotor and the divergence of the historical process for the specific goal of uncovering the issue set out in the title of this paper.
Let us take for analysis a name that was popular in Rus’ at the very start of the Christian era.
Sophia. Since for the Greek teachers this name means wisdom, then Ein Sof, the eternal Wisdom of the Talmud, and the symbol of happiness, the Egyptian Sothis, may be accepted as synonyms. This, we can define the root common to all these names as being two consonants ST. From Egyptian mythology we know that one of Ra’s names was Seth. This image is part of the nine Heliopolis hypostases of Ra.
Images of Seth changed depending on the historical period and were quite contradictory: in some texts Seth is a representative of the forces of darkness and the enemy of the sun, identified with the snake Apep, while in others he is part of Ra’s retinue and together with the gods preserves the sun in the Castle of Eternity, fighting with Apep. During the rule of the 19th Dynasty (14-13 centuries BCE) Seth was considered to be the protector of the king’s power, and the pharaohs took the name in his honour (Seth I, Seth II). The mutually exclusive images of Seth are frequently present inside the same myth and existed through virtually the entire history of Ancient Egypt. 
A.S. Shishkov groups Russian words with the ST root into a separate group with the general meaning of resilience, steadfastness, reliability, security. Stan (encampment), stanitsa (Cossack village), stena (wall), stupen’ (step), stela (stele), stol (princely table), stolp (pillar), soty (honeycomb), sut’ (essence), s’’to (Slav. subsistence ), sotnya (century of soldiers) and sotka (measure of land) are some of the examples of this meaning of the ST root encompassing the most important real-life uses for a native speaker. The category of abstract concepts such as joy (radost’), wisdom (mudrost’) and importance (vazhnost’) expand the sphere of influence of the ST root still further. In these words the significant root ST is seen as an auxiliary suffix. It may have been thus for the creators of the concept of abstractness itself only from the moment when the star Sothis disappeared from the firmament, and no earlier.
The hydronyms Sot’ and Iset’ reflect the degree of respect that the authors of these names had for the ST root being employed.
The Church Slavonic meaning of this letter combination is Holy (Svyat) [24, 1072].
This is no surprise, if we accept as a probable thesis the idea that the ancient builders of the Cathedrals of St. Sophia in Rus’ tried to discover the meanings of the name Sophia using the above-listed words with the ST root. However the Life of Sophia does not describe anything similar to security or reliability in her image.
Here we have direct evidence of the action of the historical rotor in relation to the acceptance of the name of Sophia by our contemporary reader of the Life of the saint and the ancient Novgorodian who dedicated his first Christian cathedral to her.
The significance of the root ST in the European spiritual world is fully appropriate to the Russian ST. The multiple significances of the word “set” include the above-mentioned meanings of the Russian words; this shows the original spiritual unity of Russian and European culture in the epoch when linguistic roots were being created.
Let us plunge even deeper into the structure of the word, to the component parts of an individual letters – the strokes . In the contours of the Latin G it is not hard to see the idea of an abbreviation of CT (the Russian ST). We can then permit ourselves the supposition expressed below through a novel combination of graphemes:
We have obtained the key to understanding the Europe-wide name of the Creator; the word Got is one way of writing the idea “Set – otets” (father).
At the very centre of global Christian culture, the city of Jerusalem, in the place where Joseph’s house was located, the Catholic Church of the Annunciation is now located. Its walls are decorated with images of the Virgin Mary by Catholic communities from all countries of the world, as well as inscriptions in which authoritative Catholic sages glorify the Mother of God. One such inscription is shown below.
From this inscription it follows that the name Stella (Star) belongs to the Virgin Mary.
The name consists of the roots ST and El. “El” signifies radiance [12: I], and ST nothing less than the name Seth, which was seen by the builders of the cathedrals of St. Sophia as a female name denoting Divine Wisdom. For uncertain users of Latin, in front of the inscription is an explanatory picture, pictogram or – more precisely – hieroglyph.
The obvious – to our contemporaries – Muslim motifs of a star and crescent are completely unacceptable for the interpretation of this situation. The gallery on whose walls this inscription nestles among others leads into a large chamber, on the walls of which are a number of icons of the Mother of God with a star symbolism around her head and a crescent under her feet. This, it becomes absolutely clear that the crescent and the star are symbols of the Mother of God that are not widely used in Russia today. For us now it is important that the crescent and the star are by themselves a well known image in global culture that has been subject to editing and felt on itself the effect of the rotor of the historical process.
Let us turn to a word that is one of the key and most fundamental names of Christianity. The cross (krest) and the very name of the Creator, Christ (Khristos).
As well as the ST root that we have already discussed, the word “cross” contains a second root, CR.
A.S.Shishkov gives this root no less attention than the root ST.
It is clear that the root CR is contained in such important words as krov’ (blood), krov (shelter), korol’ (king) and krug (the Cossack assembly, a symbol of military organisation). It is entirely possible that Columbus’s caravels (karavelly) were simply boats (korabli). A normal car equipped with a red cross (krasny krest) turns into an ambulance (kareta skoroi pomoshchi). Kora (crust), skorlupa (shell), yakor’ (anchor). It is interesting to see what the cross, cursive writing (kursiv) and a corset (korset) have in common. The communion of consonants in the words krest and kursiv may be a direct indicator of the origin of cursive letters from the heavenly proto-image of the Cross. Cursive is beautiful; beauty (krasota) again returns us to the roots CR and ST. A corset is a defence, a shell, a hand-made crust that is worn for beauty; is then Seth the name of the one who gives all defence and is the original source of all beauty?
Here we see the idea of validity, assistance and defence in the root (koren’) KR.
Let us look at the word krug more attentively.
According to P.Ya. Chernykh , the krug is a closed curve that at all points is equidistant from the centre. This definition is known to everyone who studied at primary school. From this word come adjectives like krugly that have been known since the 13th century. The old Slavonic KRZhG’’, the Indo-European root GER and its obscure GR-KR oscillation. Something described as obscure by thinker of Chernykh’s calibre immediately puts us on our guard, and the obscurities are already more clearly noticeable.
For example, the adjective krugly. The definition given above of the word krug also applied completely to the adjective derived from it.
Say the word slowly and drawn out, with the stress on the root: kr-ugly. Where is the corner (ugol) in a circle (krug)? Nowhere; but it is at least there in the Russian word from the 13th century.
All that remains is to show a physical object in the form of a circle but that has a corner as one of its inalienable properties. A circle with corners is shown below.
As we might have guessed, here we have the image of the celestial light, the central Sun of our galaxy, the Milky Way; its conjectured appearance is presented on a leading archaeological site .
Since there is no object more visible and important than Ra, the centre of our Galaxy, within 2 million light years of the Earth, we can fully understand those people who, when they understood this, rendered unto him what was due and linked the basic concepts of their worldview to the image of Ra, considering any other images of the surrounding world to be only secondary. Thus, the corners (ugly) in the word krugly arose because originally only one single object – the divine light of Ra – was acknowledged as krugly, and it has corners, both visible and spiritual, in the form of rays of light that reach every living being in the Galaxy, in accordance with concepts of the solid angle at which cosmic rays from celestial bodies hit our own bodies – including the lion’s share from Ra.
This angle, at which Ra’s rays illuminate the human body, is in a physical sense the good angel (angulus – corner, angle, Latin) , emanating from the Cross, which was also originally the same light of Ra due to the peculiarities of its structure.
Thus, in words with the root KR the original meaning is the idea of heavenly protection that man receives under shelter, in carriages (kareta) and boats; the idea of the source of existence, which is the roots of trees; and the idea of a living essence in the form of blood.
The combination of the KR root that is so significant for existence itself and the ST root only mutually strengthens the meaning of each of these roots.
It is even stranger to realise that the ST root is contained in names that contemporary theology unanimously condemns as the enemy of the human race: Satan.
In the modern edition of the Bible , the image of Satan is mentioned in several places. Three stories are discussed most often in worldly literature.
– The tempter of Eve in the Garden of Eden, who is called the snake (Genesis 3:1).
– The tempter of Job, who is called Satan (Job 1.6)
– The tempter of Christ, who is called the Devil and Satan (Matt 4:1).
We can conclude that the snake, Satan and the Devil are names of one and the same being, the enemy of man.
Let us apply the principle of the rotor of the historical process and see how the image of Satan was perceived in the not so distant past. The name Satanovsky was borne by one of the Orthodox religious reformers of the mid-17th century. It is impossible to concede that this surname could have been perceived by the Orthodox readers reformed by this Kievan teacher of the holy books as only mildly dubious.
Let us look at Russian literature from the 17th-18th centuries.
– On the Sea of Galilee.
– The Tale of Seven Planets.
– The Debate of the Three Saints.
These original sources, which lay out the cosmic legend of the simultaneous creation of the material and spiritual worlds and man by God and Satan, were found in the personal collections of Orthodox priests in the library of the Solovetsky monastery. Let us take advantage of the results of textual and historical analysis of the various records of these works produced by V.S. Kuznetsova [13, 3-136].
It is important to note the following. In relatively late records of the legend, as an introduction there is a text recounting how God alone created the world without any outside participation, in accordance with the modern texts of the Book of Genesis.
In earlier sources this preamble is absent, and the exposition of the legend begins immediately with the meeting of God and a goldeneye, swimming around the boundary-less Sea of Galilee, who introduced himself (according to the different versions of the legend) by the names of Sotaniil, Goldeneye, Titaniil  and Titan.
The creation of the world began thus.
– Sotonail! Dive down into the sea and bring me up earth and a stone. And Sotonail obeyed the Lord and dived into the sea, and brought him earth and a stone.
And from the material retrieved by the industrious goldeneye the world was created.
And the Lord said: “Let there be 33 whales in the Sea of Galilee, in the waters, and let there be land on these whales”.
And God took the rock from Sotonail and broke it in two. And what was in his right hand God kept for himself, and what was in his left God gave to Sotonail.
And God took the land and began to beat the stone.
And he said: “Let angels and archangels pour forth out of it, the stone, in my image and likeness and incorporeal.”
And the forces of fire began to pour forth from the stone. And God made the angels and archangels and all of the nine ranks.
And when Sotonail saw what God had made, he began to beat the stone that God had given him from his left hand. And Sotonail’s angels, the Sotonailovs, began to pour forth, and he created himself a great force.
Later, as we all know, came the creation of man.
Sotona, however, not knowing what more to do, pierced Adam’s body with his fingers.
And God came to his creation, to Adam’s body, and saw the body as it lay all pierced.
And God said:
– O Devil, how did you dare do this to my creation?
And the Devil answered:
– Lord, let this man blame you because he hurts, and then he will remember you.
As we can see, in the 19th century in northern Russia, where these legends came from, the devil was considered to be a helper of God, although not very disciplined.
We can add that, according to Yu.E. Berezkin, instead of the whales on which the land was founded, in other Russian versions of the legend about the creation of the world the following were used as the foundations of the earth:
The Titan-Fish and Mammoth-Fish in the Tale of Fyodor the Tyrant; in another (written) tale, the earth is supported by a “great fish”, on “a whale borne of fire”, on the “serpent” Eleafam, and on an “iron pillar” (Æ.Ì.Í. Ïðîñâ., April, 1863, page 14).
One detail of the conflict between God and Satan is also interesting. St. Michael failed to cast Sotonail out of heaven, since Sotonail successfully burned Michael using fire. God applied the following trick:
The Lord took it away from Sotonail and gave it to Michael, and thenceforth was Michael called the archangel, and Sotonail Sotona.
It is the “il” part of the name that contained the power of fire; having lost part of his name to his opponent, Sotona was already no danger to Michael and was easily cast out of heaven.
Let us now look at an Old Believer legend based on what we have already recounted above from the point of view of the divergence of the historical process.
The records used by Kuznetsova belonged to various people, mainly peasants who could not be suspected of authorship of them. It is much more plausible that, written down in the peasants’ books, alongside notes of how much manure was used in a given year, were amusing stories doing the rounds in the community, which had the right and the opportunity to express its opinions on the cosmogony of the universe, as well as having sufficient authority in the eyes of the peasants.
In that case we are obliged to admit that the dualistic legend we have set forth was at one time widely distributed in educated circles both in the capital and in the monasteries. Assuming this, we can easily find facts that confirm its likelihood.
Stories including God and a bird were widely disseminated in the cultural baggage of the highest European society of the epoch before the dating of the peasants’ scrapbooks with a description of the creation of the world by God and the swimming Goldeneye.
The image of the regal bird has also not been forgotten even today, when a commercial spirit rules in all spheres of life.
Let us look at how the gist of the myth has changed over time, but against its flow. We shall follow the rotor of the process, taking as its centre the image of a couple: God and the swimming bird.
The modern advertisement is a product of the reworking of the myth with no account taken of its cosmological content.
Here we have a white, regal bird, apparently after having been dry-cleaned. Since the idea of god is expressed extremely obliquely, by the stars, any honest customer of the dry-cleaner will of course associate the name Leda with the bird.
Vrubel’, who most probably based his work on the single image of Pushkin’s Swan Princess, presents a figure that is half-human, half-bird; visitors to the Tretyakovsky Gallery like it.
The great Leonardo is a completely different matter. Here we have two figures. Leda and the swan are in a tender embrace, like a married couple out walking; children hatch in pairs out of eggs (apparently taken from Leda). It is somewhat strange, but nothing indecent, like in northern Russian legends of the Sea of Galilee.
Turner draws the viewer’s attention to the zoophilic aspects of the myth, in accordance with the interpretation of the theme of the creation of the world from the union of two Creators by the antiquarian artist of the bas-relief from the Heracles museum in Rome.
Let us therefore sum up our analysis and move to the synthesis.
The idea that the world was created by the joint efforts of two Beings has by now been rooted out of our cultural baggage and of the educational programmes aimed at forming the worldview of generations growing up. Yet some time ago this idea was discussed and required the development of the official opinion presented in the works of Turner and Leonardo. Since the dualist view of the creation of the world was debated by all of the Church fathers, we can assume that it dates from the pre-Christian era. Without digging deep into the problem of the attitude of European spiritual authorities to Turner and Leonardo’s images, let us note that their bi-figural compositions cannot be regarded as ideological originals.
In exactly the same way as contemporary theologises are not required to conceive of helpers of the Creator, admirers of the image of the Slavic Lade – which is exactly how Leda is presented by Leonardo as the woman Leda – do not need a creative assistant, nor in the form of a lascivious bird.
Consequently, bi-figural compositions comprising a bird and a woman must necessarily be prefigured by images of one woman: the Mother of all living things.
And in fact that is how it is. All ancient peoples had a cult of the original Mother who gave birth to both the gods and to men . One of the images of the original Mother in Russia’s archaeological heritage is the Duck-Mother [7, 42]. The coil of changes to ideas of the Creator of the world concludes by defining by its length the intensity of the rotor of the historical process, since between the contemporary emasculated image of the swan in the dry-cleaning advert and the image of the goldeneye from the cosmogenic Russian myth there is room for all of the results of humanity’s spiritual searching for its Creator. In order to move forward, we now have to move away from the form of the word. Then we will see that there is an obvious root-form commonality between the duck and the whale that the earth stands on. KiT (whale), uTKa (duck). The single root KT can be understood based on the concepts of the meaningful significance of each letter. This approach was suggested in the paper The Divine Origin of the Cyrillic Alphabet. Let us use the table of single-lettered names from that work. K – Kii; T – Theos. Together, the letter combination KT can be seen as the image of the fertile Theos. Consequently, whales and ducks are a simplified conceptualisation in images fashioned for consumption by the mass of the people. For the intellectuals who were the creators of the letters and the roots, only the invisible image of Sophia, Divine Wisdom, unknowable by reason and the sensual organs, was, is and will be real. After such a summary the number of whales – three – appears to be a direct consequence of formulations of the triune nature of the Creator.
It is important for us to stress that this succession of religious formulations is an organic part of the single process of spiritual movement from the views of our forefathers to the views of our direct descendents. Another circumstance of substance is that the now-invisible image of Sophia was visible at some point in the past. This asseveration follows from an analysis of the graphical peculiarities of the Cyrillic letters fita (ө) and ef (ô) and the Greek theta.
As we know, the Cyrillic T was used to transfer theta from words of Greek origin . Yet until the Revolution the letter [ô] was also carried into Russian using fita, which is descended from the Greek theta. In the Collection of Svyatoslav of 1073 we can see confusion between fita and ô .
Let us now look at the graphical peculiarities of these letters, which were “mixed up” as early as the 11th century. Ө is fita, according to Fasmer; Θ is theta; Ô is fi. We should note that it is easy to get mixed up, especially between the Slavonic fita and the Greek theta. The Russian ef and the Greek fi are also similar, like the mono-ovular twins in Leonardo’s paintings. Traditionally this similarity has been explained by reference to adoption, but now we can see that this is not the only possible explanation.
In the paper Divine Origins of Cyrillic it was shown that the letters fita and theta precisely replicate the structure of the galactic centre with a central bar.
It then remains to suppose that the replacement of theta by T began in the period when the Ra’s celestial light had lost its general visibility and all that was left visible for some holy people was a T-shaped structure that can be seen on a radio wavelength of 3.6 cm today. (The question of how our distant ancestors observed the image of the centre of our Galaxy on a radio wavelength requires further elaboration.)
There is one other interesting circumstance connected with fita and theta. In modern fonts these letters are represented using the geometrical form of the oval. This corresponds to the conjectured conditions for observation of the light of Ra from the Earth. However, we have taken as a working model of Ra a different galaxy that is visible almost from front on. Thus, the oval looks like a circle, and the central bar like the shining diameter of this shining circle. In that case we are right to interpret the word diameter as Dii Mater’ (Shining Mother of Ra). In mathematics, the relationship of the proto-image of the letter I to the circle O is called pi. Through the divine proto-image of these letters we can interpret the original meaning of the coronation name of the Roman pontiff Pius and understand what in fact Io (Io - the graphical representation of the Cyrillic letter Yu), the satellite of Zeus, meant to the author of the mythical tale. What also becomes clear is the original reason for the centuries-long search for the elusive significance of the number pi. The original mysticism of these searches, with the active involvement of religious organisations, has been well described by Darren Aronofsky in his film Pi.
Thus from our discussions it follows that, for the inhabitants of Rus’, Christian views were not alien or adopted or forced on the people by the will of their overlord, but rather followed on naturally from the views of the spiritual intellectuals of generations that had gone before. Moreover, as shown above, the drawing of Cyrillic letters followed heavenly developments, and the popularity of certain letters – as well as cursive and printed ustav – among literate monks changed in accordance with the visible structure of their heavenly proto-image – the star Sothis, which also had many other names. Consequently, the Whale (kit) supporting the earth may have been prefigured by KiF. This is not just the name in the gospel for the high priest Caiphas, but also the name given to the apostle Peter by Jesus himself [4, 1128].
The image of the stone corresponds closely in meaning with the image of the pillar as supporting the world, but the written form of fita points the reader directly to the skies, to the original image of this letter, which is acknowledged as the original cause of the existence of the world and its three-fold support. The divine bearer of the name Kit is Centaurus, who goes only forward, like a beam of light.
The idea of the three-in-one-ness is repeatedly reflected in the graphemes that make up the names of the letters. Fita, literally, is shining Theos. Theta looks like tyotya (woman or aunt) (the divine one, of course). It was she who was called Tit or Titaniil in Russian apocryphal tales. And it was she who was considered the Creator of the World and the Mother of all living things, both people and gods.
Every name of a so-called pagan god can easily be tracked down in the list of names of the Christian saints.
We have already noted Sophia, Divine Wisdom, and the Italian peasant Sophia. There is also the saint Dyi. Not only the images but also the name of the Egyptian god of wisdom, Toth, and the patron saint of scientists, the Orthodox St. Tatyana correspond to the Titan-Fish and Titaniil mentioned above.
So-called “pagan gods” have survived and prospered to the present day in the form of images of saints bearing ancient, pre-Christian names.
They therefore have preserved their protecting functions insofar as the person appealing for protection pronounces these names.
A Christian who prays to St. Nicholas is appealing to the ancient Kolo, or Ra himself; there is in fact a persistent opinion among the faithful that prayers addressed to this image will be effective.
A Christian who appeals to St. Sarah of the Old Testament by calling her daughter by that name thereby seeks the protection of Siya Ra, and of course obtains it. A guarantee of this is the authority of the Russian saints Sergius, Nilus and Serafim, in whose names the name Sara is present as a component. The name was used by the builders of the great multitude of towns along the Volga to beseech divine help and protection.
Saratov, Saransk, Sarov, Sarapul, and finally Sarai. It is entirely possible that between the ancient inhabitants of these towns, the founders of the Sorochinsk fair and the historical Saracens we could find not only chance coincidences of naming, but some commonality of the spiritual principles that define the rules for choosing a name for a town and a people.
Let us now consider the question of the geographical dissemination of opinions of the creators of the root KT, which we shall trace in the following manner.
Even superficial acquaintance with the materials that philologists have compiled on the topic of the cosmogenic myths of various peoples will show an enormous dispersion of opinions. The whales that the world stands on may number one, two, three, four, seven or thirty three. Instead of whales there are turtles, toads, frogs, serpents and sturgeon; we are still not certain that the next expedition by city philologists to far-flung places will not turn up something else new. There is obviously a demand for more large-scale evidence about the worldview of people of the past than just tales of the latest cunning Uncle Mazai and scratchings on shards.
It is completely obvious that at about the same time some people invented pots and threw away their cosmogenic images, while others planned cities and roads while still maintaining their own cosmogenic ideas, expressed not in pots but in appropriately large objects. Evidence of this lies in the names of the cities, but in order to understand them we must first understand the worldview of the author of the names. The name Kit – borne by the very centre of Moscow, Kitai-gorod – offers just such an opportunity. Let us look for this Kit’s fellows; according to the version of the northern Russian legend of the Sea of Galilee there should be another two larger ones and thirty smaller. We shall take “larger” in its spiritual sense of comparable with the significance of Kitai-gorod as a religious centre around which all of the Russian lands were collected. This condition limits the area of our searching in a quantitative respect of the unknown two. They are Kyoto, the religious centre of Japan, and Quito, the religious centre of the New World.
A modern educated person will find it hard to see the logical links between the names of objects so far apart in space and time, and easier to declare this geographical happenstance to be a coincidence.
Yet if we abjure the search for simple recipes, we must perforce recognise and then explain the planetary ideological unity of the originators who gave these names to the cities in a profound, almost mythological antiquity.
At the very least, our contemporary must know that Moscow has countless churches, while Kyoto is the city of a thousand temples .
Quito is known not for quantity, but for quality. It is that that the very first, most magnificent and most celebrated Christian churches on the continent are located .
The religious Christian filling of the names of distant Japanese cities will become more explicable if we remember the meaning of the Russian word kiot: a cabinet for holy images, or icons. Contemporary authorities on etymology will most probably interpret this term as being adopted from the Greek.
Yet can we really think that Japanese builders would have rummaged through Greek Church dictionaries in search of a name authoritative among the Orthodox for their ancient and contemporary capitals (compare the names: To-kio, Kio-to)? The meaning of the Japanese word is trivial: “capital city”. The meaning of the Russian root KT raises the reader up to the level of a universal world-view.
It is telling that the role of the Virgin who protects the city of Quito is fulfilled by the statue of a saint named Quito raised up above the city.
Nevertheless, the coincidence of the name of Christian saint (no earlier than the arrival of the Spaniards on the continent) and Quito, the self-appellation of the Indian tribe that built the city of Quito, the capital of the Indian empire of Quitu (about 700 years before the appearance of the first Spanish Christians in America), is surprising.
It seems that these godfathers – unknown to us – of the capitals of Japan, the Indian Quitu empire and Muscovy spoke in one language and confessed the same religious principles, at least on the issue of choosing names for their holy cities.
As a plinth for St. Quito serves that same Serpent and the earthly sphere, signifying that in this context we have before us the image of the supreme being not only of the Orthodox but of all Aryan humanity.
In Latin the whale is cetus; thus kity – cete. Although written cete, we can pronounce it “tsete”. The Oxford English Dictionary shows a direct link between the Latin word cetus and the Greek ketos.
Thus, to demonstrate that there is no coincidence in the convergence of the cosmogenic images of the whale, the pillar and Seth as the prime cause of humanity’s prosperous existence on the earth, we must find at least a dozen whales in addition, and preferably in countries with an acceptably coherent history over the last 500 years.
The first two are relative easy to find: the Île de la Cité, the heart of Paris, with its famous Cathedral of Notre Dame and the Sorbonne; and the City, now the business centre of London.
The following circumstance leads us to the system of the obligatory original naming of any serious European (and not only European) city as Set.
The heart of such a city looks like a fortified place on a mountain, a hill or an elevation (a rock; in other words, on a whale), which in all European languages is called a citadel.
Thus, in the context of the cosmogenic myth, the whale (kit) and the pillar (stolp) signify the same thing: a steadfast (ustoichivy) support, an essence (sut’), the source (istok) of existence, and moreover alive.
As we have come to an understanding of the circumstance that the author – and still more the transmitter – of some tribal legend to an inquisitive metropolitan ethnographer was in no way obliged to understand his own story in a way that exhausted all of its meaning, he had the right not to consider the outlines of the whole complexity of cosmogenic myths of the people of the world.
The requirements are completely different for a university analyst who collects at his desk the myths and stories of the different religions of the planet.
It is at that moment that there arises the magnificent opportunity, so far ungrasped, to separate from the myth the quintessence – the same for all the diverse stories – of its original and wisest meaning.
In our example the whales of our story-tellers flap lash their tails, swim in the sea and generally impress their living essence on the listener’s imagination.
This essence is strengthened when we discover how whales were fed by the angels from the Garden of Eden, while other peoples founded the Earth on trout, salmon and even pike.
Pillars behave in an incomparably calmer and even soulless manner, in particular those made of iron and copper.
Nevertheless, the quality common to whales and pillars is the role that they play of a support for our human world.
Moscow’s “kitai” and the European “citadel” are slightly different forms of expression of the same concept: the divine elevation of a place on a rock (whale, petrus). This same concept of the name Kit as a reliable support of any construction, material and spiritual, can be traced in the gospel story of Christ’s nomination of Simon:
You shall be called Cephas, which means Rock. (Pyotr)
Accordingly, the inhabitants of the human settlement founded deliberately on that place have, in the eyes of the natives, inviolable authority and the right to collect taxes of varying severity.
This conformity with natural law in the names of famous cities and places can be traced across the whole planet from Kitai-Gorod to the Île de la Cité and the City in the west, to Kyoto and Tokyo in the east, and to Quito in any direction around the planet from citadel to citadel.
Another possible treatment of the names Sophia, Kitai and City concerns the possibility of interpreting this ancient name of the anti-sun. Thus we obtain Efes, one of the most celebrated towns of antiquity, the birthplace of the philosopher Heraclitus and, according to legend, the refuge of the Mother of God.
In ascribing whales and pillars as the symbol of a place’s reliability and holiness we must also adjoin other symbols of support in the form of powerful gods and heroes.
St. Quito has a more popular namesake in Europe: St. Catherine.
The life of the holy martyr St. Catherine describes her outstanding wisdom and martyr’s death on a machine invented specially for her: an eight-spoked wheel with iron spikes. This wheel appears on all symbols connected with the image of the saint, including on the main Russian female order, that of St. Catherine.
An important circumstance is that the name Catherine is a royal name, and therefore the image of an instrument of torture on an official medal awarded for the most part by the person on the throne, even when picked out in diamonds, would be inappropriate.
The doubts increase when we examine the English-language concept of the term Catherine wheel .
Making fireworks in the cause of the torture and punishment of a defenceless woman on a spiked wheel would seem to be inappropriate. And circular windows are utterly irrelevant.
Let us approach the situation from the other side, testing in relation to the name Sophia. In that case the spiked wheel and other torments from the Life become earthly images of the original idea of a divine light that can be appropriately symbolised by a wheel and a firework and even by a round window, a source of light. The eight spikes on Catherine’s wheel correspond to the eight-pointed Star of Bethlehem on the brow and chasuble of the Three-Handed Mother of God.
The images of wheels and fireworks are highly popular among authors of astronomical websites when describing the appearance of far-off galaxies. These images also inspired our ancestors when describing the attributes of the visible centre of our own Galaxy. As a result, after its visible disappearance there arose various interpretations of what had happened, including the idea of punishment, of death, of the loss of a luminous force, of the loss of vision and even of an eye.
The idea of the All-Seeing Eye as an attribute of the Creator is present in the icon-painting tradition.
Below is the 14th-century icon of the Saviour with the Burning Eye from the Cathedral of the Dormition in Moscow’s Kremlin [14, 13].
The icon painter is obviously not attempting to depict suffering, victimhood or submissiveness to circumstances. Au contraire, here we have the creator of circumstances, strength, will and power. If we so desire we can also detect in the image cunningness and slyness expressed in the asymmetrical outline of the face.
It is these qualities, intrinsic to other divine images traditionally acknowledged as the fruits of the pagan worldview, that tradition connects to the attribute of the burning eye.
Let us start our dissection of the symbolism of the eye with the Slavic pagan cultural baggage.
The Slavic elementary eye is not a letter, although it can substitute for any letter and bring holiness to concepts whose name is written under an eye. This process is called “entitling” (pod titlo). Similarly to the Titan-Fish, Titan, Toth, Tatyana and Titaniil, this is what the sign in the form of an eye is called [24, 1069].
Apart from replacing some letters, the titlo has another interesting quality. Its presence above a word lends the word a shade of holiness. Thus, good and evil angels are distinguished in the letter by the presence or absence of the titlo over the name of the angel, which in both cases is written extremely similarly.
The Orthodox tradition has another eye as well. The collection of canticles for divine service is called the Deacon’s Eye, or the Stikhirar’.
The ancient chroniclers explained the name of the collection thus: “Without you those who desire to sing the music of the Church are lost in the darkness.”  Consequently, this eye could clarify or light up the darkness of ignorance.
Let us now look at global forces for images of the eye.
The text of the myth of Ra and his problems with eyesight is written in one of the hieratic papyruses in the Turin museum .
– And the god grew old, and his mouth shook, and his saliva dribbled onto the earth, and what he spat fell onto the soil. And Isis rubbed [the spit] with dust in her hand and from it made a powerful serpent, and made him in the form of an arrow so that he should not run away from her alive.
– And the powerful god opened his lips [and said]: “See, I went along the road through Egypt, since my heart desired to see all that I had created. And I was bitten by a snake that I had not seen. Is it not fire; is it not water? But I am colder than water and hotter than fire, all of my parts are sweating, and I myself shake; my eye is not steady and I cannot see the heavens, and moisture has come on my face like a summer rain.”
– I have many names and many beings, and my being is in every god! I was called Atum and Horus of Heken. And my father and my mother told me my name, and hid it in my body from my birth, so that the magical powers should not be given to him who would use them against me.
The gospel narrative includes a story that combines divine saliva mixed with dirt and problems with vision (John 9,6)
[Jesus] spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and spread the clay upon his eyes.
The blind man washed and his sight returned.
There were also problems with his eyes for Shiva, whose eyes the goddess Parvati once closed and he went blind, before in his anger despatching the joker to the underworld.
Gogol’s Vii and the Irish Balor also had poor eyesight.
There are two possibilities: to continue counting all these images and topics, linked among themselves by similar circumstances of the burning eye, eye illnesses, blindness or healing of it, but independent of each other in space and time and caused by the unsanitary conditions of existence of the ancient gods and heroes; or to detect a single original source for these subjects in the form of the divine burning “eye” shown in Albrecht Altdorfer’s 1529 painting The Battle of Alexander at Issus, on display in Munich’s Alte Pinakotech.
Let us look at possible links between the images of the cross, the star and the form of several Cyrillic letters.
The definition of the terms “star” and “cross” is known to everyone at least on a basic level, since relatively recently the Red Star was one of our country’s most important state symbols.
However, let us begin in order, with just one.
Is a star or a cross possible with one ray?
Let us give a number of images that could form the basis for a positive answer to this question:
– An obelisk with a star (cross) as a single symbol.
– A Christmas tree with a Star of Bethlehem as a single symbol.
– The visible part of a neck-tie (19th century).
– A comet with a tail. (17th century).
– A sword and scabbard. (12th century).
– The letter I (in the form with a dot, i).
- The letter rtsy .
A straight vertical line is usually considered to be a graphic representation of the idea of a link between the divine above and the human below; moreover, the point is a symbol of the utterly ineffable Creator.
Nevertheless, the light of Ra has in its structure a clearly visible element in the form of a straight segment. This element, which is common to a number of galaxies, is called the central bar.
A star with two rays and a cross with two arms. This sort of star is often called a rhombus. Here are some examples.
– The needle of a modern compass.
– A bow tie.
– The head of a Russian axe from the tsar’s private bodyguard of the 17th century.
- A labris, or two-edged axe of the pagan ear, that symbolised life and Zeus himself, since it was his name.
The Cyrillic letters K, X and the old yer . Incidentally, the Latin alphabet this grapheme Z also has the name zed. It is unique in that tradition acknowledges the need to seek the form hidden under this sign, along with X (kher) and the Latin Y. It is interesting to trace the symbolic link between the consonant concepts of the labris and the labarum. The latter is Constantine’s gonfalon and is a combination of the Cyrillic letters rtsy and kher. A labarum on the star of Constantine from the Order of St. George is shown below. It is not difficult to see the similarity between the contours of the two-headed ritual axe and the figure of the labarum. It is entirely possible that this similarity in name and form is not a coincidence. In that case, it would make possible the unity of ideas that these symbols have expressed in various locations and epochs.
A star with three rays.
By far the most popular of contemporary symbols are the following three-pointed stars: the Mercedes-Benz trademark and the sign for radiation danger in the form of a three-pointed cross. The ideological link we need across territories and times is established by the symbol of the city of Kyoto, which comprises a combination of a three-pointed and three-pointed cross.
The letter Y and the less similar Cyrillic letter Ó. It is true that the purely Cyrillic letter Æ can be considered, based on the image of the Kyoto symbol, as a combination of two three-pointed stars.
The four-pointed star and four-armed cross are widely represented in the world of symbols.
These figures form the basis for the symbolism of all the honours of the Russian empire, and also the lion’s share of world honours.
Here are the best known.
Note that the square star of the Order of the Bath, executed in “flaming Gothic” style, can be seen as a nod to the swastika and to eight-pointedness. To try to understand the motivation of the creators of the symbol of the Order of the Bath, let us return to our considerations above about the presence of corners in a circle.
Let us compile several possible centrally symmetrical combinations of corners and a circle for a case with four corners.
Symbol no. 1: the corners form a square, depicted in a circle. Used in the contemporary practice of symbols by the designer of the reverse of the new shekel. According to some this is the resurrection of an ancient symbol [17, 67].
Symbols no. 2 and 3 are widely known as images of the state symbols of fascist Germany in the middle of the 20th century. The succession of symbol no. 3, in the NATO logo, is interesting. The literature  shows a similar symbol widely distributed across many countries and eras.
Symbol no. 5 is an ancient Arian symbol Vedaman and is partly the idea for the state flag of Ingushetia (in its three-cornered version).
Symbols no. 4 and 6 are the widely represented forms of stars and crosses of Russian orders both from the time of Peter and the present day. These combinations of corners and the circle show the unity of the original idea of the swastika, the star and the cross as a combination of the divine light of Kolo – the circle and its emanations presented by rays or by corners, by angels. This religious idea common to all of humanity from the Golden Age, Satya-Yoga, was developed creatively by numerous generations of designers of specific symbolic of heraldic signs who themselves had never observed Kolo in the firmament.
The corner could even transform into part of the circle, arch or crescent, as can be seen in the example of the state symbol of Ingushetian society, which professes the principles of Islam. This circumstance establishes a link between the direct stroke and the other at the level of the cosmic proto-image. It is for this reason that the Catholic Church of the Annunciation in Jerusalem, as shown at the start of the paper, has on its walls crescents connected with the image of the Virgin.
In the Cyrillic alphabet the letter kher represents an oblique cross of St. Andrew.
Five-pointed stars do not require any special introduction, since they are widely used in contemporary symbolism, both military and state. However, the presence of such stars on orders of the past is interesting.
The cross of the French Légion d’Honneur is five-pointed.
There was no Cyrillic letter with the appropriate degree of symmetry.
The six-armed honours cross and the six-pointed star are represented, for example, by the signs of the order of St. Joseph. The name of the saint, the husband of the Mother of God in the gospels, is too close to the name Seth for this to be a coincidence.
The Cyrillic letter corresponding to the symmetry of the order of St. Joseph is Æ.
The British Order of St. Michael and St. George has a seven-armed cross.
The majority of Russian orders and the Sacred Constantian Order of St. George have eight-pointed stars, the Duchy of Parma.
The Portuguese military Order of the Immaculate Conception of Vila Viçosa has a nine-pointed star.
As we can see from the examples presented, in the practice of the global development of symbols of the cross and the star a greater number of points and arms does not change the basic idea that the sign is dedicated to the divine protector to whom the images of any cross and any star originally belong. Accordingly, anyone granted any the above orders considers himself to be under the protection of the heavenly celestial Power, which can be signified by a multitude of symbols, including through letters of the Cyrillic alphabet that contain straight lines and corners.
Let us now turn to the Cyrillic letters that contain arches.
We can trace the logic of the creator of these graphemes.
The letter C – slovo – is an elementary arch, partly smooth and crooked. As a component part of the arch, the letter C is included in the graphemes zelo and zemlya in two ways; we can say metaphorically that the letters zelo and zemlya are the sys- and trans-isomers of the combination of two elementary arches. Moreover, the author of these graphemes was obviously underscoring the component nature of the sign of zelo with the central straight line. The ceremonial omega is made up of four C arches. This letter does not exist in contemporary writing; however there is the paragraph sign § which, although not a letter, structurally is composed of the same four Cs, or two zelos, as we can see.
The semantic content of these graphemes can be traced.
The very name of the letters C – slovo (word) – refers us back to the Gospel according to John. All that remains is to consider that at some point this slovo – solovo shone in the earthly firmament in the form of a galactic radial. It is from here that we get a holy place name for Orthodoxy: the Solovetsky monastery. The meaning of this name is completely transparent: star (sol) – the egg (ovo) from which the world came, the golden egg laid by the Duck-Mother.
The letter zelo was less fortunate: it lives in only seven Slavonic words, two of which – zmei (serpent) and zlo (evil) – provoke completely unequivocal associations in someone who knows the Book of Genesis.
However, that same serpent took root in a number of totally positive symbols, from the caduceus and uroboros to the innocent emblem of healthcare. Here, for example, are some rather unexpected places where we can find this symbol.
We should note that it is the Cyrillic letter zelo, like the Latin S, that is most clearly discernable on photo-images of spiral galaxies like our Milky Way.
On the 16th-century watermark shown above, a rebus is shown, the phase of Ra the god (Ra bus), comprising symbols that pertain to him. On the “neck” we can see a grapheme similar to a mirror image of the letter Ç or the number 3. The “hair” is two zelo graphemes that as a pair form a helix symbol.
The inter-relationship of the urobos and the divine light, which is sometimes depicted in the form of a cloud with a tetragrammaton inside, can be understood by looking at the symbolics of pictures taken from the books of Athanasius Kircher .
As we can see from comparing the images below, the fully intelligible name Theos corresponds to the uroboros, the lion and the mask. All of these symbols relate to one object, the heavenly light, surrounded by clouds as depicted in Altdorfer’s picture.
The mass of symbols presented across the spatial and temporal dimensions allows us to conclude that the creators of the symbols we have examined were in a single ideological space, the centre of which was their concept of a fertile, rational, favourable heavenly body that one day lost its luminescence.
It was at this moment – which has been described as the death of a god (Osiris, Christ, Pan), the loss of vision (Ra, Shiva, Vii, Balor) or an eye (Horus’s) – that the concept triumphed of the invisible god characteristic of modern Christianity.
However, we can trace the unbroken development of human imaginings of the Creator from the most distant epochs of zoomorphic divinities right up to the present day. It is this circumstance that allows us to formulate an idea of the worldview of the people of the era when the roots of the Russian language were created.
Above all we should note that on the base, the foundation on which the language is based, lie ideas – resonant to the modern Orthodox worldview – of the unbroken connection between the Creator and his creation, including man. This idea of a vertical link between above and below is reflected in the vertical lines of Russian letters (I, È, Ï) and corners leading downwards (À, Ã, Ä, Ë). Thus, each of the Cyrillic letters is a whole symbol that carries the meaning of the name of the Creator, preserved in individual cases for all time.
The very first two-letter words, which are now interpreted as roots, also as a unit relate to the consciousness of the mutual relationship of man and God, who protects and defends man.
This circumstance – the religiosity of man that exhausts all meaning – is the main characteristic of the creator of the roots of the Russian language.
An important peculiarity of the worldview of these thinkers is the large scale of their understanding of the world. In relation to their native planet, their horizons were planetary, as we can see in the single ideology behind the names of the capitals of Rus’ (Kitai-Gorod), Japan (Kyoto, Tokyo) and the Indian empire of Quitu (Quito). In relation to the spiritual horizon, their outlook was cosmic, encompassing the scale of our whole galaxy, since all the religious attention of the thinkers was focused on the geometric centre of the Galaxy, where Ra, its original source and protector, is located. This vector of spiritual striving for the extra-terrestrial centre guaranteed in a completely natural way one language and one faith for all the people on the earth; there was no basis for enmity or incomprehensibility as far as ideology was concerned.
Distortions of this spiritual connection began shortly after the disappearance of the light of Ra from the firmament. Of itself this event led to a spiritual catastrophe, as a result of which arose ideas of god’s hostility to man, of his death, and the old sages and teachers lost their authority altogether after the disappearance of the one heavenly spiritual tuning fork that they had used to check their insight.
After this began an era of the mixing of ideas, languages and authorities. The new authorities were significantly reduced in scale, both planetary and universal. The centres of attraction for religious interests were made towns on earth, where earthly people lived. Naturally, because of the length of the earth’s routs, in different places appeared different protectors and teachers who taught because of the strength and uniqueness of their thought, glancing at the earthly powers, since conditions for people living on earth in the era of Kali-Yoga were significantly worse than in previous eras, and progress in achieving satisfaction for an intelligent person demanded no little organisational skill regarding forcible allocation of the fruits of Christian labour. Naturally, such a person experiences a completely understandable need to thank the administrative authorities for creating the conditions for creative activity, and his theories in and of themselves become convincing proof of the lawfulness and desirability of any needs of the administration, while any other opinions simply do not have a chance of being heard in an organised forum.
It is clear, and we know from history, that such a system of organisation of human society requires the creation of institutions of conviction and coercion, and that men somehow perform this task better. Such is the reason for the ascent to power of man, whose gender was accordingly adapted by the gods to the new realities.
So the image of the Mother of God that is common to all the ancient civilisations is now crowded out by male hypostases of the Creator. Further the development of religious opinions proceeded along an entirely predictable path: those in power realised that if the people needed god, then let the people know that god loves the rich and the powerful; it would also be no bad thing for more people to understand the reason for this love, since it is entirely logical for god to love his successors.
Thus arose the reason and the motive for another revolution in humanity’s ideological space: the move from zooform images of the Mother of God to anthropomorphic ones. Yet who, in fact, which people could say that Duck-Mother or Turtle-Mother loves only it, the chosen people?
The Duck does not have a nationality. It is another matter that the image of the Mother of God is in the form of a woman with a nose of a certain shape. At once there is the opportunity, by pointing to the nose, to declare one’s direct descent from the divinity, pan-human in its duck-like image, but in its human image now the property of a specific, resourceful people, which realised before others the possibilities that ties of kinship with the gods would give for using the fruits of others’ labours, even if confirmed only by its own confidence in its own right to others’ labour.
We shall illustrate this with examples of the evolution of the semantic content of biblical names.
At the present time the names Sara, Rebecca, Rachel and Lia are generally accepted as corresponding to the images of modest, obedient women who devotedly served powerful and intimidating Palestinian shepherds of flocks of sheep. These shepherds easily wrestled with the angels, multiplied and created their own religious teaching, which is considered to be the basis of modern Christianity.
However, in the structure of these names it is not difficult to see more ancient roots: the names Syi, Ra, Bog (god), Kolo and El.
Thus, it is entirely plausible that, in their religious views, the Palestinian shepherds used the pan-human imaginings of the divine light that these ancient names carry. In that case the female name Sara should be understood as Syi Ra, Rebecca as Ra Bog, and Rachel as Ra Kolo. Accordingly, the text of the Old Testament currently existing as the final truth, having a clearly reflected Middle Eastern localisation of the events they describe, predated with apodeictic authenticity more ancient texts with the mentioned names, which related to the image of shining El, the heavenly light of Ra, not necessarily anthropomorphic but common to all humanity. The hypothetical arch of these texts could well have has its own names. The literature  shows that the probably name of the pre-biblical holy book of the Indo-Europeans was Christomatiya.1
After such a conclusion it is not difficult to see that the books of the Old Testament contain similar themes related to the one universal event of the disappearance of the deity.
For example, Jonah, who spent three days in the belly of the whale, could well have had the same proto-image as Noah, who spent time in the belly of an ark. They have the same name, but it is written twice in different directions.
The unfortunate Job, tormented by Satan, has an Egyptian counterpart in the unfortunate Horus, who was tormented by Seth; but that is not all. Job also has an old Roman namesake Jove, who was also Zeus and Deus.
Job and Jove have Vii as the bearer of a common name written in opposite directions. True, Vii did not lose his herd and his women, like Job, but can we consider the absence of perfect vision to be some other, possibly divine, punishment? In addition, if we try to recognise the image of Vii on a larger scale, than was done by the author of the biblical book of Job, then we can recognise in this story of lost children and sheep not the personal struggle of the shepherd Job but the planetary catastrophe of people who thought themselves to be the children of the divine Vii, weakened with the loss of the effulgence of his divine eye.
The appropriateness of changes to the semantic perception of names that have long since become roots of the Russian language is as follows.
The Christian worldview, which has itself changed extremely radically, as has been shown, as it grew from the moment Christianity was adopted in Rus’ to today, was preceded by a worldview that should be recognised as more adequately reflecting the physical realities of our world.
As the centre of attraction of spiritual interests in modern mass Christianity have been chosen the lands of the Middle East. The pre-Christian worldview had its centre of attraction of spiritual interests as Ra, the beaming centre of our stellar home, the Galaxy.
Accordingly, the modern Christian, narrow national images of forefathers are deliberately shrinking the divine, supra-national, non-anthropomorphic proto-image that radiates the light and warmth visible and perceived by human sense organs.
1.Àñòðîíîìè÷åñêèé ñàéò Àñòðîíåò. http://www.astronet.ru
2.Áàãäàñàðîâ, Ð. Ñâàñòèêà: Ñâÿùåííûé ñèìâîë. Ýòíîðåëèãèîâåä÷åñêèå î÷åðêè. – Ì., 2001.
3.Áåðåçêèí, Þ.Å. Òåìàòè÷åñêàÿ êëàññèôèêàöèÿ è ðàñïðåäåëåíèå ôîëüêëîðíî-ìèôîëîãè÷åñêèõ ìîòèâîâ ïî àðåàëàì. Àíàëèòè÷åñêèé êàòàëîã. http://www. ruthenia.ru/folklore/berezkin/?nocalendar=1
4.Áèáëèÿ. Êíèãè ñâÿùåííîãî ïèñàíèÿ Âåòõîãî è Íîâîãî çàâåòà. Ðîññèéñêîå áèáëåéñêîå îáùåñòâî.– Ì., 1995.
5.Ãèíäèí, Ë.À. Çíàé ñâîé ðîä (Íàä ñòðàíèöàìè Î.Í. Òðóáà÷åâà) http://www. voskres.ru/bratstvo/trbchv.htm
6.Ãèíçáóðã, Â.Ë. Ðåëèãèÿ äåéñòâèòåëüíî ìîæåò óòåøèòü, íî ÿ íå ìîãó ïîâåðèòü, ÷òî äâàæäû äâà – ïÿòü (âçãëÿä àòåèñòè÷åñêèé). Áåñåäîâàëà Àííà Ëåîíòüåâà. Îïóáëèêîâàíî â æóðíàëå «Âåùü» ¹3 (67), 24 àïðåëÿ 2006.
7.Äàíèëåíêî, Â.Í., Øèëîâ, Þ.À. Íà÷àëà öèâèëèçàöèè. Êîñìîãîíèÿ ïåðâîáûòíîãî îáùåñòâà. Ïðàèñòîðèÿ Ðóñè.– Ì., 1999.
8.Äâîðåöêèé, È.Õ. Ëàòèíñêî-ðóññêèé ñëîâàðü.– Èçä. 5-å.– Ì., 1998.
9.Åïèñêîï Èëàðèîí (Àëôååâ). Ñâÿùåííàÿ òàéíà öåðêâè. Ââåäåíèå â èñòîðèþ è ïðîáëåìàòèêó èìÿñëàâñêèõ ñïîðîâ: Â 2 òò.– Ñ-Ïá., 2002.
10.Æèòiå è ïîäâèãè ïðåïîäîáíîãî è áîãîíîñíàãî îòöà íàøåãî Ñåðãiÿ èãóìåíà Ðàäîíåæñêàãî è âñåÿ Ðîññiè ÷óäîòâîðöà. Ñâÿòî-Òðîèöêàÿ Ñåðãiåâà Ëàâðà. 1904.–Ì., 1991.
11.Êèðîâ, Å.Ô. Ãðàôèêà ðóññêîãî ÿçûêà äî è ïîñëå Êèðèëëà (ê âîïðîñó î ïðîèñõîæäåíèè áóêâåííîãî ïèñüìà) http://www.gramota.ru/mag_arch.html?id=160
12.Êðàòêîå æèòèå ñâÿòûõ ìó÷åíèö Âåðû, Íàäåæäû, Ëþáîâè è Ñîôèè. http://la-france-orthodoxe.net/ru/sviat/sophie
13.Êóçíåöîâà, Â.Ñ. Äóàëèñòè÷åñêèå ëåãåíäû î ñîòâîðåíèè ìèðà â âîñòî÷íîñëàâÿíñêîé ôîëüêëîðíîé òðàäèöèè.– Íîâîñèáèðñê, 1997. http://www.ruthenia.ru/ folklore/kuznetsovacont.htm
14.Ëàçàðåâ, Â.Í. Ìîñêîâñêàÿ øêîëà èêîíîïèñè.– Ì., 1980.
15.Ìàòüå, Ì.Ý.Èçáðàííûå òðóäû ïî ìèôîëîãèè è èäåîëîãèè Äðåâíåãî Åãèïòà.– Ì., 1996.
16.Ìèôû Åãèïòà. http://www.simplesitepromotion.info/mifi/12323/
17.Ïîäîëüñêèé, Áàðóõ. Áåñåäû îá èâðèòå è î ìíîãîì äðóãîì.– Òåëü-Àâèâ, 2004.
18.Ïðåññ-ðåëèç UCLA, Los Angeles 3 ñåíòÿáðÿ 2003 ãîäà. http://www2. keck.hawaii.edu/news/plasma.html
19.Ïðîòîïîïîâ, Âë. Ðóññêàÿ ìûñëü î ìóçûêå â XVII âåêå. Ìîñêâà, 1989.
20.Ðîáàòåíü, Ñ.Ñ. Óðîêè èìÿñëàâèÿ. Ðàçìûøëåíèÿ íàä êíèãîé åïèñêîïà Èëàðèîíà (Àëôååâà) «Ñâÿùåííàÿ òàéíà öåðêâè» // Àêàäåìèÿ Òðèíèòàðèçìà.–Ì., Ýë ¹ 77-6567, ïóáë.14485, 02.07.2007 http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016 /001b/00161396.htm
21.Ðîññèéñêîå çàêîíîäàòåëüñòâî X-XX ââ.: Â 9 ò./ îòâ. ðåä. À.Ã. Ìàíüêîâ.– Ì., 1986.
22.Ñàéò î çíàìåííîì ðàñïåâå. http://dyak-oko.mrezha.ru/index.php?id=mail
23.Ñëàâÿíîðóññêèé êîðíåñëîâ. Ôîíä ñëàâÿíñêîé ïèñüìåííîñòè è êóëüòóðû.– Ñ-Ïá., 2005.
24.Ñîòíèöû. Íà÷àëà ïîçíàíèÿ âåùåé áîæåñòâåííûõ è ÷åëîâå÷åñêèõ / ïîä ðåä. Àðõèìàíäðèòà Íèêîíà (Èâàíîâà) è ïðîòîèåðåÿ Íèêîëàÿ (Ëèõîìàíîâà).– Ì., 2006.
25.Ôàñìåð, Ì. Ýòèìîëîãè÷åñêèé ñëîâàðü ðóññêîãî ÿçûêà: Â 4 òò.– Ì., 1986.
27.×åðíûõ, Ï.ß. Èñòîðèêî-ýòèìîëîãè÷åñêèé ñëîâàðü ñîâðåìåííîãî ðóññêîãî ÿçûêà.– Ì., 1993
28.Athanasius Kircher Image Gallery at Stanford University. http://kircher.stanford.edu
29.Barrera, I.J. Quito colonial, Quito, 1927.
30.Narbutt, T. Dzieje starozytne narodu Litewskiego. Wilno, 1835. Öèò. ïî ñòàòüå: Ñîêîë-Êóòûëîâñêèé Î.Ë. Äðåâíåéøèé Ëèòîâñêèé ôëàã – ÷åé æå îí? // Àêàäåìèÿ Òðèíèòàðèçìà.– Ì., Ýë ¹ 77-6567, ïóáë.14596, 10.10.2007 http://www. trinitas. ru/rus/doc/0211/008a/02111123.htm
31.Pokorny, J. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch.– Bern, 1959.
32.Ponsonby-Fane, R., Brabazon, A. Kyoto, the old capital of Japan, Kamikato-Kyoto.1956.
33.The concise Oxford Dictionary.9th Ed, Clarendon Press. Oxford.95.
1The modern Russian for “reader, reading book”. (Translator’s note)
Pre-Cyrillic Slavic Writing and Pre-Christian Slavic Culture: Materials of the First International Congress (12-14 May 2008) /under gen. ed. of V.N. Skvortsov. – SPb.: LSU named for A.S. Pushkin, 2008.– V. 3. – pp.267-307